From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Jun 30 01:43:30 2004 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) id i5TNhUd8012428 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:43:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from smtprep.jpl.nasa.gov (smtprep.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.184]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i5TNhFE7012422 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:43:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from vsnyder@mls.jpl.nasa.gov) Received: from eis-msg-mx01.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-mx01.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.64]) by smtprep.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5TNi6YN018314 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mls.jpl.nasa.gov by eis-msg-mx01.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:05 -0700 Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]) by mls.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i5TNi4mI022426 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TNi5cv029735 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:05 -0700 Received: from math.jpl.nasa.gov (vsnyder@localhost) by math.jpl.nasa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id i5TNi5Id029731 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200406292344.i5TNi5Id029731@math.jpl.nasa.gov> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 Reply-to: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov From: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Protocol for deciding content of next revision after Fortran 2003 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:05 -0700 X-Spam-Score: 0.339 () NO_REAL_NAME Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk During the development of Fortran 2003, on a few occasions J3 spent more time arguing whether a feature was within the remit from WG5 than it would have taken simply to do it. I would like to propose a modification of the working relation between WG5 and J3 that would avoid some of these arguments, and allow more to be done while still keeping to the agreed schedule. I propose that WG5 develop separate lists of "must do" and "may do" projects. I propose that the "may do" list be allowed to be arbitrarily large, but that things must be added to it explicitly by WG5 agreement. The projects on the "may do" list should not necessarily be limited to ones that WG5 anticipates are sufficiently small that specs, syntax and edits could be handled by one paper at one meeting. I propose that J3 not work on any "may do" papers on any particular day until all "must do" papers and discussion ready for consideration on that day are completed, and then only if members agree that time permits. Arguments of the form "we don't have time to do it so it shouldn't be considered" would then not waste our time. Arguments of the form "that's fancier than WG5 authorized" would still be in order. -- Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake? Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Sean O'Keefe, George Bush, the Pope, or anybody else.